As an editor, my first reaction was to cringe. Holy Crap! Thank god it wasn't me! But it could have been.

No matter how many "layers of editors and fact checkers" a publication has, the process is chaotic, with many cooks stirring the soup.

Sometimes changes I make don't get incorporated, sometimes there's a version control failure and an earlier draft gets substituted for a later draft, sometimes people make changes and don't tell me--I'm not going to reread a novel every time somebody tinkers with a sentence.

There are many ways a problem can creep in and it isn't economically feasible to control for every possible source of error.

Here are some more prices http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/apccomparison/

Then you have cases like that of Jan Schon who published hundreds of peer reviewed papers in an amazingly short time. Sometimes 2 a week. The flagship journal Science, had to withdraw 7 of his papers.

He was so bad that the University of Konstanz in Germany rescinded his PhD for dishonorable conduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

Not peer reviewed but did, presumably pass editorial muster was Alan Sokal's famous paper where he took a bunch of social science buzzwords, dropped them into a paper and got them published as a scholarly article in Duke University's Post-Modernist journal "Social text"

Put not your trust in peer review.

Full Disclosure: I have published several peer reviewed journal articles as well as 40-50 other non-peer reviewed articles in technical/trade magazines.

My non-journal editors have always been much more questioning than my peer reviewers.

As an editor, my first reaction was to cringe. Holy Crap! Thank god it wasn't me! But it could have been.

Same. When you co-author something and the other authors are not in your building, it's hard to resist the temptation to send along a message in the text of the article. I'll try not to be snarky about it in the future.